being “the only detention facility in the country” to have “2,000 convicts living in tents.”

But the coup de grâce is the
office’s “Mugshot of the Day!” contest.
Discerning readers can not only vote for their favorites, but also check out
the M.O.D. Leader Board. Personally, I’m
pulling for that perp whose eyes have that profound look of despair. So funny!
Who cares if that one is innocent! Just priceless. Don’t know which one I’m
talking about? Good point. I guess they all kind of look that way . . . .

Score One for the Publishers

Where would people go for
entertainment and delightfully vicious comment-posting if Maricopa County and third-party
mugshot publishers hadn’t won their recent legal battle? (Speaking of
classy, the sites that require arrestees to pay for removal of their photos
really know how to make a buck.) Thankfully, a federal district judge recently ruled
that these folks can continue to post booking photos with impunity. (Jamali
v. Maricopa County, 2013
WL 5705422 (D. Ariz. Oct. 21, 2013).)

In his opinion, District Judge David
G. Campbell held that the Constitution doesn’t bar the law enforcement practice of taking and publishing arrestee images. He invoked the
government’s purpose of prisoner safe-keeping, escape prevention, and escapee
identification. I must have missed the part where he explained how private
companies profiting from mugshots through advertising and extortion promote law
enforcement purposes. And the part where he explained how agencies who reduce
the arrest process to schadenfreude advance public welfare.

A Balance to Be Struck?

There are, of course, legitimate
reasons for mugshots and their proper display. Judge Campbell identified them.
And there are bona fide First Amendment concerns any time courts block any of
the many forms of “speech.”

But can’t we have at least some regulation of mugshot posters?
Before you scoff and retort that the people whose images grace these sites got
what they deserved, consider a couple points.

Innocent Defendants: They’re Really out There

Many people whom the police arrest
turn out to be innocent. Take, for example, a former client. A court of law exonerated
him of the sex crimes for which he was not only arrested, but also convicted and imprisoned.
He was eventually able to get the government to remove him from its sex-offender registry, but there was nothing he could do about the third-party
sites that wouldn’t extend this “courtesy.”

Even in less egregious cases, is it
fair for someone who was arrested but never convicted to live with this kind of
permanent electronic stain?

Second Chances

People make mistakes. Yes, they even
commit crimes. But shouldn’t the sentence for the crime—and its reasonableconsequences—be
enough? I guess some believe that redemption and rehabilitation are pipe
dreams. Why pass on the opportunity to laugh at these scumbags?

•

Maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe,
after all, the Maricopa Sheriff’s Office does it right. Almost directly under
the images and names of its prisoners, there’s a nice little disclaimer about
inmates who haven’t gone to trial being innocent until proven guilty. With that
kind of thoughtfulness, who needs regulation?